From: "Isaac Leung" <os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com>
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=e04o7x26FLmOERua739L6xw1EYxiapjtlRTELHuTZC/jmZiT/IAlynn7Epl3mqYQNaUrW7GZ6Ptnr6+mi563RacamSFdosBeosz4XN/YU4zpQt5jf2ONRGht/rjEIroK/J7KRG2+QmrNCdDeO36mNSdl3B+NLOX77bWHO5/puV8=
Message-ID: <3cc24eb80611180842xb46e099i128f23e4fcb95079@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:42:30 -0800
To: "OS/2 Wireless Users Mailing List" <os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com>
Subject: Re: [OS2Wireless]Re: Getting worse performance with new GenMAC 2.0
In-Reply-To: <list-539465@2rosenthals.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <list-539465@2rosenthals.com>

Well, I'm not so concerned about the actual numbers. But they do seem
to correlate with perceived performance. Even when I do have
connection, it seems noticeably slower than with 1.6 no matter where
or when I'm surfing the web.

I could kind of live with that, but not with it crapping out or
failing to acquire.

This particular laptop just had a fresh (2 weeks old!) install on
which I put on a clean GenMAC 1.6 install. I then installed right over
with 2.0 a few days ago and saw the same problems as I did with 1.7 on
a previous installation. I installed right over again with 1.6 and it
is very happy now.....mysterious....


Isaac

On 11/18/06, Andy Willis <os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com> wrote:
> Isaac Leung wrote:
> > Is anyone else seeing the same issue?
> >
> > I have a Thinkpad T40p with the built-in wireless (It is Atheros chipset).
> > Using GenMAC 1.6 with XWLAN 2.14, it has been pretty much flawless.
> > (Warp 4.52 with FP5)
> >
> > I tried GenMAC 1.7 a while ago, it was worse so I switched back. I
> > recently upgraded to GenMAC 2.0 with XWLAN 3.0 and it shows the same
> > behaviour. MUCH worse!
> >
> >
> > Here's the symptoms:
> > - The reception shows typically 5-10% weaker signal, for whatever
> > reason. (I'm in a small apartment, so it's easy to be repeatable to be
> > in the same physical location).
> > - It takes MUCH longer to acquire IP address, sometimes it fails to
> > ever acquire unless I ask to "scan for connection" again.
> > - Connection fails after some time. i.e. I can surf and connect to all
> > the web sites for about the first 10-15min.  or whatever, but then it
> > "dies". XWLAN shows green and connected, but I cannot even ping my own
> > router or any other web site.
> >
> >
> > Any tips or suggestions?
> > I've reverted back to 1.6 for now since the newer editions are
> > essentially unuseable for me.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Isaac
> I had no problems connecting to either of my AP's (home and work) with
> any 1.x.  It did seem to take quite a while to acquire an IP but I
> couldn't say it was out of the norm as it has been so long since I
> connected windows via wireless I don't recall how long it took.  2.0
> seems to take about as long via a WEP connection but WPA seems to get
> an IP much faster (there are some variables I need check before I can
> say that definitively).
> I have noticed that with genmac 2.0 (whether with wlan 2.14 or 3.0) it
> does show to have a weaker signal.  What I have not determined as yet
> is whether the signal is actually weaker or if the guage is more
> sensitive/accurate.  I have also seen stronger signal than I have ever
> gotten as well - such as right now I am seeing 100% which the
> strongest I had ever seen from this AP is 88% and my T42 is/has been
> literally 3ft directly above the AP.  I have been watching the signal
> strenght and it has dropped to 86% (which is what it used to mostly
> sit at) but has mostly been 90 - 100%.  I don't know why it has so
> much variance which it used to not have but with the range involved
> 90+% seems more reasonable than 86-88% but the more constant numbers
> seem more plausible so that one is a hard call.
> Andy
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>   the mailing list <os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <os2-wireless_users-off@2rosenthals.com>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <os2-wireless_users-digest@2rosenthals.com>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <os2-wireless_users-index@2rosenthals.com>
> Send administrative queries to  <os2-wireless_users-request@2rosenthals.com>
> To subscribe (new addresses), E-mail to: <os2-wireless_users-on@2rosenthals.com> and reply to the confirmation email.
>
> This list is hosted by Rosenthal & Rosenthal
> P.O. Box 281, Deer Park, NY 11729-0281. Non-
> electronic communications related to content
> contained in these messages should be directed
> to the above address. (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003)
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>